Leasehold Reform Act 1967 — Notice to acquire freehold — Applicant owning other property — No mention of other property on notice — Whether applicant occupied relevant dwelling as her only or main residence — Appeal by tenant dismissed
The appellant tenant acquired the lease of the subject dwelling at 17 Bridgeland Street, Bideford, Devon, from one of her father’s companies. She served notice pursuant to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 seeking to acquire the freehold; on the notice she stated that she had been in residence for a period exceeding the minimum three years. At the time she was also the owner of a cottage where her children lived; that information was not given in her notice. Her application for a declaration that she was entitled to the freehold under the 1967 Act was dismissed by His Honour Judge Peck in the Barnstaple County Court (March 26 1990) on the grounds that she had not occupied the subject dwelling as her only or main residence and that she had failed to disclose the cottage on the notice contrary to para 6(1)(d) of Schedule 3 to the 1967 Act. She appealed against that decision and that she should be barred from serving a further notice for a period of five years.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
Whether a dwelling is a person’s only or main residence is a question of fact and degree. The trial judge, having heard the evidence, was entitled to conclude that the appellant had not shown that the subject dwelling was her only or main residence. Further, there was evidence that the notice contained a misrepresentation of a material fact.
Cresswell v Duke of Westminster [1985] 2 EGLR 151 considered.
Kirk Reynolds (instructed by Peter Peter & Wright, of Bideford, Devon) appeared for the appellant; and Simon Monty (instructed by Bazeley Barnes & Bazeley, of Bideford, Devon) appeared for the respondents.
